Author Topic: catholic changes  (Read 6177 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline arrow prayer

  • formily isus
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
catholic changes
« on: March 01, 2014, 12:23:15 AM »
we talk a lot about how catholics are notorious for change....
what are some of those changes?
grace given you in christ jesus

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2014, 12:27:55 AM »
Just go to a Sedevacantist website.

Vatican II: Council of Apostasy by Most Holy Family Monastery (90 min.)
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 12:31:47 AM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Maria

  • Boldly Proclaiming True Orthodox Christianity
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,023
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
    • Saint Euphrosynos Cafe Discussion Forum
  • Faith: TrueGenuine Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC under Archbishop Stephanos
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2014, 01:01:40 AM »
Just go to a Sedevacantist website.

Vatican II: Council of Apostasy by Most Holy Family Monastery (90 min.)

That is the worst site and it is not representative of anybody except the Dimond Brothers.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 01:28:23 AM by Maria »
The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai
Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,
Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Offline lovesupreme

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,451
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2014, 01:50:29 AM »
Who is saying that Catholics are "notorious for change"?

I've always gotten the impression that the Roman Catholic Church is one of the most conservative Christian groups out there, rivaled only by Orthodoxy. In fact, they would accuse us of "changing" our stance on contraception.

They would maintain that they have kept the original Faith in its entirety, and that perceived "change" is only a result of doctrine developing over the course of history. At least that's my understanding.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 02:11:13 AM by lovesupreme »

Offline Green_Umbrella

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 188
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2014, 02:10:16 AM »
we talk a lot about how catholics are notorious for change....
what are some of those changes?

Who says Catholics are notorious for change?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,778
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2014, 03:34:58 AM »
we talk a lot about how catholics are notorious for change....
what are some of those changes?
you mean the Vatican?  The Vatican Papacy.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Auryn

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 92
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2014, 03:47:32 AM »
No salvation outside the Church (Pope says atheists are ok now the teaching used to be VERY strict)...joint declaration on salvation with Lutherans...the mass...some trads get pretty upset JPII added mysteries to the rosary...teaching on religious liberty, Christ the King...Vat II also says that humans were made for our own sake and not for God so all that human dignity rights of man stuff...attitudes towards the death penalty from the popes and in the new catechism...barely any fasting or penances required anymore even to receive communion...

um...I'm sure there are more, but that's good for now I guess. 
If there is prayer, the soul lives; without prayer, there is no spiritual life. + St. Theophan the Recluse +

Offline arrow prayer

  • formily isus
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2014, 08:22:00 AM »
we talk a lot about how catholics are notorious for change....
what are some of those changes?
you mean the Vatican?  The Vatican Papacy.

i heard a lot of ppl on this forum saying they're notorious of change...

i  was thinking  more along the lines of what changes did they make after the schism with orthodox in the early years, like one is unleavened bread, things like  that.

but if  there is vatican two stuff, share that too
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 08:22:30 AM by isus »
grace given you in christ jesus

Offline Justin Kolodziej

  • The one they call Justin
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,506
  • the Sorrowful
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Atlanta
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2014, 12:59:23 PM »
we talk a lot about how catholics are notorious for change....
what are some of those changes?
you mean the Vatican?  The Vatican Papacy.

i heard a lot of ppl on this forum saying they're notorious of change...

i  was thinking  more along the lines of what changes did they make after the schism with orthodox in the early years, like one is unleavened bread, things like  that.

but if  there is vatican two stuff, share that too
The "usual suspects" are Filioque, unleavened bread, priestly celibacy, denying the Precious Blood to the laity (now reversed), fasting on Saturday, kneeling on Sunday, purgatory, indulgences.

To that I could add the multiplication of Masses and altars, and the "low" Mass involving one priest and one altar server saying the prayers of the Mass quietly, congregation optional. These are related to the belief that it is better to have 20 Masses for 20 different departed souls, than one Mass for all 20.
Forgive me the prodigal.
One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism: please act like it, brothers and sisters!

Offline arrow prayer

  • formily isus
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2014, 09:32:56 PM »
Just go to a Sedevacantist website.

Vatican II: Council of Apostasy by Most Holy Family Monastery (90 min.)

are sedevacantists still roman catholic or have they seperated *blush* sorry i don't know.


but does no one really have nothing to say on this topic
i read thread after thread of people saying catholics have introduced so many changes....and now that i have a thread about it no one has any  comments
am i missing something
(not to sound rude, just surprised is all)
grace given you in christ jesus

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2014, 09:38:15 PM »
Just go to a Sedevacantist website.

Vatican II: Council of Apostasy by Most Holy Family Monastery (90 min.)

are sedevacantists still roman catholic or have they seperated *blush* sorry i don't know.


but does no one really have nothing to say on this topic
i read thread after thread of people saying catholics have introduced so many changes....and now that i have a thread about it no one has any  comments
am i missing something
(not to sound rude, just surprised is all)

Compared to (mostly 'Low Church') Protestants, Catholics are very traditional. Sedevacantists don't accept the Papacy and the Second Vatican Council, so they separated. But they still believe in Catholic doctrines and councils up until Vatican I.

So, they still believe in the majority of Catholic dogma, doctrine and practice.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 09:44:24 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Nephi

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,829
  • A non-Chalcedonian in Chalcedonian clothing.
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2014, 09:50:20 PM »
Who is saying that Catholics are "notorious for change"?

I've always gotten the impression that the Roman Catholic Church is one of the most conservative Christian groups out there, rivaled only by Orthodoxy. In fact, they would accuse us of "changing" our stance on contraception.

They would maintain that they have kept the original Faith in its entirety, and that perceived "change" is only a result of doctrine developing over the course of history. At least that's my understanding.

I'm in a graduate religious studies department at a Catholic university. Catholics on average are not one of the most conservative Christian groups. The conservative/traditional Catholics are a minority on their own campus.

Almost everyone is in favor of varying degrees of liturgical abuse. Many in my department are involved with liturgical music, and are very much into guitars, using non-Christian songs (e.g. Mumford and Sons) for prayer services, etc. There was a recent inter-faith service where "sacred texts" of the university's religions were read in the campus chapel. People seem overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex marriage, women priests, etc. There's a priest-professor on campus that denies the physical/historical resurrection of Jesus. Feminist/liberation theology is rampant.

Honestly, the only conservative thing I can say they do is oppose abortion.

Offline arrow prayer

  • formily isus
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2014, 09:56:53 PM »
Just go to a Sedevacantist website.

Vatican II: Council of Apostasy by Most Holy Family Monastery (90 min.)

are sedevacantists still roman catholic or have they seperated *blush* sorry i don't know.


but does no one really have nothing to say on this topic
i read thread after thread of people saying catholics have introduced so many changes....and now that i have a thread about it no one has any  comments
am i missing something
(not to sound rude, just surprised is all)

Compared to (mostly 'Low Church') Protestants, Catholics are very traditional. Sedevacantists don't accept the Papacy and the Second Vatican Council, so they separated. But they still believe in Catholic doctrines and councils up until Vatican I.

So, they still believe in the majority of Catholic dogma, doctrine and practice.

me again,
i'm not understanding something here. how can they belive majority of catholic dogma and technically be catholic (if im understanding you) and  not accept papacy
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 09:57:16 PM by isus »
grace given you in christ jesus

Offline Nephi

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,829
  • A non-Chalcedonian in Chalcedonian clothing.
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2014, 10:19:36 PM »
are sedevacantists still roman catholic or have they seperated *blush* sorry i don't know.


but does no one really have nothing to say on this topic
i read thread after thread of people saying catholics have introduced so many changes....and now that i have a thread about it no one has any  comments
am i missing something
(not to sound rude, just surprised is all)

Compared to (mostly 'Low Church') Protestants, Catholics are very traditional. Sedevacantists don't accept the Papacy and the Second Vatican Council, so they separated. But they still believe in Catholic doctrines and councils up until Vatican I.

So, they still believe in the majority of Catholic dogma, doctrine and practice.

me again,
i'm not understanding something here. how can they belive majority of catholic dogma and technically be catholic (if im understanding you) and  not accept papacy

They accept the doctrines about the Papacy, but they believe the Papal See itself is currently vacant (hence their name, after "sede vacante"). I suppose they would consider Pope Francis as an anti-pope, but still await a legitimate pope.

Offline arrow prayer

  • formily isus
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2014, 10:23:16 PM »
are sedevacantists still roman catholic or have they seperated *blush* sorry i don't know.


but does no one really have nothing to say on this topic
i read thread after thread of people saying catholics have introduced so many changes....and now that i have a thread about it no one has any  comments
am i missing something
(not to sound rude, just surprised is all)

Compared to (mostly 'Low Church') Protestants, Catholics are very traditional. Sedevacantists don't accept the Papacy and the Second Vatican Council, so they separated. But they still believe in Catholic doctrines and councils up until Vatican I.

So, they still believe in the majority of Catholic dogma, doctrine and practice.

me again,
i'm not understanding something here. how can they belive majority of catholic dogma and technically be catholic (if im understanding you) and  not accept papacy

They accept the doctrines about the Papacy, but they believe the Papal See itself is currently vacant (hence their name, after "sede vacante"). I suppose they would consider Pope Francis as an anti-pope, but still await a legitimate pope.

thank you. that was helpful
just wondering, how do they determine if a pope is legitimate
and i'm not up to date on my current events why is pope francis considered an anti pope to them, because he hasn't made any ex cathidra decisions? is that what you mean by vacant?

%%%$%#%$$%#
sorry
i'm so lost
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 10:28:31 PM by isus »
grace given you in christ jesus

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2014, 10:38:36 PM »
are sedevacantists still roman catholic or have they seperated *blush* sorry i don't know.


but does no one really have nothing to say on this topic
i read thread after thread of people saying catholics have introduced so many changes....and now that i have a thread about it no one has any  comments
am i missing something
(not to sound rude, just surprised is all)

Compared to (mostly 'Low Church') Protestants, Catholics are very traditional. Sedevacantists don't accept the Papacy and the Second Vatican Council, so they separated. But they still believe in Catholic doctrines and councils up until Vatican I.

So, they still believe in the majority of Catholic dogma, doctrine and practice.

me again,
i'm not understanding something here. how can they belive majority of catholic dogma and technically be catholic (if im understanding you) and  not accept papacy

They accept the doctrines about the Papacy, but they believe the Papal See itself is currently vacant (hence their name, after "sede vacante"). I suppose they would consider Pope Francis as an anti-pope, but still await a legitimate pope.

thank you. that was helpful
just wondering, how do they determine if a pope is legitimate
and i'm not up to date on my current events why is pope francis considered an anti pope to them, because he hasn't made any ex cathidra decisions? is that what you mean by vacant?

%%%$%#%$$%#
sorry
i'm so lost

They can't be Catholic and be against the Papacy, yet they say they are.

By vacant, they mean that there hasn't yet been a legitimate holder to the Papacy since... whatever Pope they consider was the last legitimate Pope. They really don't have a way to determine whether a Pope is legitimate or not. But, the closest thing that they seem to consider is how 'orthodox' the current Pope is.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Maria

  • Boldly Proclaiming True Orthodox Christianity
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,023
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
    • Saint Euphrosynos Cafe Discussion Forum
  • Faith: TrueGenuine Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC under Archbishop Stephanos
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2014, 10:38:55 PM »
are sedevacantists still roman catholic or have they seperated *blush* sorry i don't know.


but does no one really have nothing to say on this topic
i read thread after thread of people saying catholics have introduced so many changes....and now that i have a thread about it no one has any  comments
am i missing something
(not to sound rude, just surprised is all)

Compared to (mostly 'Low Church') Protestants, Catholics are very traditional. Sedevacantists don't accept the Papacy and the Second Vatican Council, so they separated. But they still believe in Catholic doctrines and councils up until Vatican I.

So, they still believe in the majority of Catholic dogma, doctrine and practice.

me again,
i'm not understanding something here. how can they belive majority of catholic dogma and technically be catholic (if im understanding you) and  not accept papacy

They accept the doctrines about the Papacy, but they believe the Papal See itself is currently vacant (hence their name, after "sede vacante"). I suppose they would consider Pope Francis as an anti-pope, but still await a legitimate pope.

thank you. that was helpful
just wondering, how do they determine if a pope is legitimate
and i'm not up to date on my current events why is pope francis considered an anti pope to them, because he hasn't made any ex cathidra decisions? is that what you mean by vacant?

%%%$%#%$$%#
sorry
i'm so lost

The Sedes consider all the Popes after Pius XII to be anti-Popes, that is they consider them to be false popes and false teachers. I will not use the term "hairy tick" to describe them, but that is what the Sedes consider these popes to be.

"Vacant" is the term used by the Sedevacantes to indicate that the seat of St. Peter is without a pope or is vacant.

"Ex Cathedra" means from the chair. A "cathedra" is the chair in the cathedral upon which the Bishop sits. When a pope makes a statement that is considered to be infallible it is said to be made "ex cathedra."
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 10:42:28 PM by Maria »
The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai
Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,
Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Offline arrow prayer

  • formily isus
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #17 on: March 01, 2014, 10:43:25 PM »
are sedevacantists still roman catholic or have they seperated *blush* sorry i don't know.


but does no one really have nothing to say on this topic
i read thread after thread of people saying catholics have introduced so many changes....and now that i have a thread about it no one has any  comments
am i missing something
(not to sound rude, just surprised is all)

Compared to (mostly 'Low Church') Protestants, Catholics are very traditional. Sedevacantists don't accept the Papacy and the Second Vatican Council, so they separated. But they still believe in Catholic doctrines and councils up until Vatican I.

So, they still believe in the majority of Catholic dogma, doctrine and practice.

me again,
i'm not understanding something here. how can they belive majority of catholic dogma and technically be catholic (if im understanding you) and  not accept papacy

They accept the doctrines about the Papacy, but they believe the Papal See itself is currently vacant (hence their name, after "sede vacante"). I suppose they would consider Pope Francis as an anti-pope, but still await a legitimate pope.

thank you. that was helpful
just wondering, how do they determine if a pope is legitimate
and i'm not up to date on my current events why is pope francis considered an anti pope to them, because he hasn't made any ex cathidra decisions? is that what you mean by vacant?

%%%$%#%$$%#
sorry
i'm so lost

The Sedes consider all the Popes after Pius XII to be anti-Popes, that is they consider them to be false popes and false teachers. I will not use the term "hairy tick" to describe them, but that is what the Sedes consider these popes to be.

"Vacant" is the term used by the Sedevacantes to indicate that the seat of St. Peter is without a pope or is vacant.

Ex Cathedra means from the chair. A cathedra is the chair in the cathedral upon which the Bishop sits. When a pope makes a statement that is considered to be infallible it is said to be made "ex cathedra."

ok i'm getting most of the things you guys  are saying
but what if a big issue arose right now that needed an ex cathedra decision, who would do it if the seat is vacant
grace given you in christ jesus

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #18 on: March 01, 2014, 10:46:42 PM »
are sedevacantists still roman catholic or have they seperated *blush* sorry i don't know.


but does no one really have nothing to say on this topic
i read thread after thread of people saying catholics have introduced so many changes....and now that i have a thread about it no one has any  comments
am i missing something
(not to sound rude, just surprised is all)

Compared to (mostly 'Low Church') Protestants, Catholics are very traditional. Sedevacantists don't accept the Papacy and the Second Vatican Council, so they separated. But they still believe in Catholic doctrines and councils up until Vatican I.

So, they still believe in the majority of Catholic dogma, doctrine and practice.

me again,
i'm not understanding something here. how can they belive majority of catholic dogma and technically be catholic (if im understanding you) and  not accept papacy

They accept the doctrines about the Papacy, but they believe the Papal See itself is currently vacant (hence their name, after "sede vacante"). I suppose they would consider Pope Francis as an anti-pope, but still await a legitimate pope.

thank you. that was helpful
just wondering, how do they determine if a pope is legitimate
and i'm not up to date on my current events why is pope francis considered an anti pope to them, because he hasn't made any ex cathidra decisions? is that what you mean by vacant?

%%%$%#%$$%#
sorry
i'm so lost

The Sedes consider all the Popes after Pius XII to be anti-Popes, that is they consider them to be false popes and false teachers. I will not use the term "hairy tick" to describe them, but that is what the Sedes consider these popes to be.

"Vacant" is the term used by the Sedevacantes to indicate that the seat of St. Peter is without a pope or is vacant.

Ex Cathedra means from the chair. A cathedra is the chair in the cathedral upon which the Bishop sits. When a pope makes a statement that is considered to be infallible it is said to be made "ex cathedra."

ok i'm getting most of the things you guys  are saying
but what if a big issue arose right now that needed an ex cathedra decision, who would do it if the seat is vacant


Nobody. But, the Sedes believe that the 'big issue' already happened, the Vatican II council. I have read from some Sedes on this forum that they often determine certain things not in Canon Law, on Scholasticism.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 10:47:31 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline arrow prayer

  • formily isus
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #19 on: March 01, 2014, 10:55:34 PM »
are sedevacantists still roman catholic or have they seperated *blush* sorry i don't know.


but does no one really have nothing to say on this topic
i read thread after thread of people saying catholics have introduced so many changes....and now that i have a thread about it no one has any  comments
am i missing something
(not to sound rude, just surprised is all)

Compared to (mostly 'Low Church') Protestants, Catholics are very traditional. Sedevacantists don't accept the Papacy and the Second Vatican Council, so they separated. But they still believe in Catholic doctrines and councils up until Vatican I.

So, they still believe in the majority of Catholic dogma, doctrine and practice.

me again,
i'm not understanding something here. how can they belive majority of catholic dogma and technically be catholic (if im understanding you) and  not accept papacy

They accept the doctrines about the Papacy, but they believe the Papal See itself is currently vacant (hence their name, after "sede vacante"). I suppose they would consider Pope Francis as an anti-pope, but still await a legitimate pope.

thank you. that was helpful
just wondering, how do they determine if a pope is legitimate
and i'm not up to date on my current events why is pope francis considered an anti pope to them, because he hasn't made any ex cathidra decisions? is that what you mean by vacant?

%%%$%#%$$%#
sorry
i'm so lost

The Sedes consider all the Popes after Pius XII to be anti-Popes, that is they consider them to be false popes and false teachers. I will not use the term "hairy tick" to describe them, but that is what the Sedes consider these popes to be.

"Vacant" is the term used by the Sedevacantes to indicate that the seat of St. Peter is without a pope or is vacant.

Ex Cathedra means from the chair. A cathedra is the chair in the cathedral upon which the Bishop sits. When a pope makes a statement that is considered to be infallible it is said to be made "ex cathedra."

ok i'm getting most of the things you guys  are saying
but what if a big issue arose right now that needed an ex cathedra decision, who would do it if the seat is vacant


Nobody. But, the Sedes believe that the 'big issue' already happened, the Vatican II council. I have read from some Sedes on this forum that they often determine certain things not in Canon Law, on Scholasticism.

was the seat vacant when the decision for the vatican 2 council was made?
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 10:59:19 PM by isus »
grace given you in christ jesus

Offline Maria

  • Boldly Proclaiming True Orthodox Christianity
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,023
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
    • Saint Euphrosynos Cafe Discussion Forum
  • Faith: TrueGenuine Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC under Archbishop Stephanos
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #20 on: March 01, 2014, 11:00:59 PM »
are sedevacantists still roman catholic or have they seperated *blush* sorry i don't know.


but does no one really have nothing to say on this topic
i read thread after thread of people saying catholics have introduced so many changes....and now that i have a thread about it no one has any  comments
am i missing something
(not to sound rude, just surprised is all)

Compared to (mostly 'Low Church') Protestants, Catholics are very traditional. Sedevacantists don't accept the Papacy and the Second Vatican Council, so they separated. But they still believe in Catholic doctrines and councils up until Vatican I.

So, they still believe in the majority of Catholic dogma, doctrine and practice.

me again,
i'm not understanding something here. how can they belive majority of catholic dogma and technically be catholic (if im understanding you) and  not accept papacy

They accept the doctrines about the Papacy, but they believe the Papal See itself is currently vacant (hence their name, after "sede vacante"). I suppose they would consider Pope Francis as an anti-pope, but still await a legitimate pope.

thank you. that was helpful
just wondering, how do they determine if a pope is legitimate
and i'm not up to date on my current events why is pope francis considered an anti pope to them, because he hasn't made any ex cathidra decisions? is that what you mean by vacant?

%%%$%#%$$%#
sorry
i'm so lost

The Sedes consider all the Popes after Pius XII to be anti-Popes, that is they consider them to be false popes and false teachers. I will not use the term "hairy tick" to describe them, but that is what the Sedes consider these popes to be.

"Vacant" is the term used by the Sedevacantes to indicate that the seat of St. Peter is without a pope or is vacant.

Ex Cathedra means from the chair. A cathedra is the chair in the cathedral upon which the Bishop sits. When a pope makes a statement that is considered to be infallible it is said to be made "ex cathedra."

ok i'm getting most of the things you guys  are saying
but what if a big issue arose right now that needed an ex cathedra decision, who would do it if the seat is vacant


Nobody. But, the Sedes believe that the 'big issue' already happened, the Vatican II council. I have read from some Sedes on this forum that they often determine certain things not in Canon Law, on Scholasticism.

was the seat vacant when the decision for the vatican 2 council was made?

Yes, according to Sedes. Ironically, Pope Pius XII initiated the start of Vatican II, but died before it started.

I wrote to the Dimond Brothers and asked them why they did not include Pope Pius XII in with the anti-Popes, and they replied, "You are a heretic." That is not surprising, when you consider that the Dimond brothers consider everyone else to be a heretic.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 11:03:59 PM by Maria »
The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai
Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,
Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,814
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #21 on: March 01, 2014, 11:15:50 PM »
I wrote to the Dimond Brothers and asked them why they did not include Pope Pius XII in with the anti-Popes, and they replied, "You are a heretic."
That's the same thing that an Orthodox priest told me when I tried to enroll in his catechism class. He said he did not accept heretics for the class.

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,814
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #22 on: March 01, 2014, 11:21:58 PM »
Just go to a Sedevacantist website.

Vatican II: Council of Apostasy by Most Holy Family Monastery (90 min.)
The site may be an extreme one, but if a person wants to know why Catholic sedevacantists think the way that they do, then I think your advice is pretty good.
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/anti-pope-francis-vatican-ii-antipopes/#.UxKoTpWYa1s

Offline arrow prayer

  • formily isus
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2014, 11:42:11 PM »
maria
if they accept the pope that initiated the vatican 2 council how is it that they don't accept the council itself, am i missing  something

major   thread derail btw
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 11:42:28 PM by isus »
grace given you in christ jesus

Offline Maria

  • Boldly Proclaiming True Orthodox Christianity
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,023
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
    • Saint Euphrosynos Cafe Discussion Forum
  • Faith: TrueGenuine Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC under Archbishop Stephanos
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #24 on: March 02, 2014, 12:02:01 AM »
maria
if they accept the pope that initiated the vatican 2 council how is it that they don't accept the council itself, am i missing  something

major   thread derail btw

No this is not a major thread derail.

It just shows the inconsistencies in the Sede's way of thinking.
The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai
Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,
Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,814
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #25 on: March 02, 2014, 12:07:03 AM »
maria
if they accept the pope that initiated the vatican 2 council how is it that they don't accept the council itself, am i missing  something

major   thread derail btw
I don't think it is a derail. It is part of the question of changes in the RCC since VII.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #26 on: March 02, 2014, 12:23:25 AM »
maria
if they accept the pope that initiated the vatican 2 council how is it that they don't accept the council itself, am i missing  something

major   thread derail btw

The Sedes reject the Papacy in favor of 'orthodoxy.' At least, in their mind.

They'd rather hold to a more orthodox Catholicism without the Pope than one they consider 'modernist' with the Pope.

Kind of how the Orthodox do.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Maria

  • Boldly Proclaiming True Orthodox Christianity
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,023
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
    • Saint Euphrosynos Cafe Discussion Forum
  • Faith: TrueGenuine Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC under Archbishop Stephanos
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #27 on: March 02, 2014, 12:29:21 AM »
maria
if they accept the pope that initiated the vatican 2 council how is it that they don't accept the council itself, am i missing  something

major   thread derail btw

The Sedes reject the Papacy in favor of 'orthodoxy.' At least, in their mind.

They'd rather hold to a more orthodox Catholicism without the Pope than one they consider 'modernist' with the Pope.

Kind of how the Orthodox do.

Yes, Sedes are more Orthodox than the Pope, but they are too Catholic to be Orthodox.
The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai
Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,
Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Offline lovesupreme

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,451
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #28 on: March 02, 2014, 12:33:16 AM »
Who is saying that Catholics are "notorious for change"?

I've always gotten the impression that the Roman Catholic Church is one of the most conservative Christian groups out there, rivaled only by Orthodoxy. In fact, they would accuse us of "changing" our stance on contraception.

They would maintain that they have kept the original Faith in its entirety, and that perceived "change" is only a result of doctrine developing over the course of history. At least that's my understanding.

I'm in a graduate religious studies department at a Catholic university. Catholics on average are not one of the most conservative Christian groups. The conservative/traditional Catholics are a minority on their own campus.

Almost everyone is in favor of varying degrees of liturgical abuse. Many in my department are involved with liturgical music, and are very much into guitars, using non-Christian songs (e.g. Mumford and Sons) for prayer services, etc. There was a recent inter-faith service where "sacred texts" of the university's religions were read in the campus chapel. People seem overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex marriage, women priests, etc. There's a priest-professor on campus that denies the physical/historical resurrection of Jesus. Feminist/liberation theology is rampant.

Honestly, the only conservative thing I can say they do is oppose abortion.

I meant that the institutional church is conservative (i.e. in its official teachings, as expounded in the Catechism). I suppose this raises the question of "who's a real Catholic" -- the majority of Catholics, or the minority that accepts all Church teachings? But that's kind of a stupid question.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2014, 12:37:49 AM by lovesupreme »

Offline Nephi

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,829
  • A non-Chalcedonian in Chalcedonian clothing.
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #29 on: March 02, 2014, 12:58:12 AM »
maria
if they accept the pope that initiated the vatican 2 council how is it that they don't accept the council itself, am i missing  something

major   thread derail btw

The Sedes reject the Papacy in favor of 'orthodoxy.' At least, in their mind.

They'd rather hold to a more orthodox Catholicism without the Pope than one they consider 'modernist' with the Pope.

Kind of how the Orthodox do.

Yes, Sedes are more Orthodox than the Pope, but they are too Catholic to be Orthodox.

Sedes would want a very centralized universal Church with Rome at the top though, right? Pope Francis at least claims to want more local autonomy and collegiality.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #30 on: March 02, 2014, 01:03:20 AM »
maria
if they accept the pope that initiated the vatican 2 council how is it that they don't accept the council itself, am i missing  something

major   thread derail btw

The Sedes reject the Papacy in favor of 'orthodoxy.' At least, in their mind.

They'd rather hold to a more orthodox Catholicism without the Pope than one they consider 'modernist' with the Pope.

Kind of how the Orthodox do.

Yes, Sedes are more Orthodox than the Pope, but they are too Catholic to be Orthodox.

Sedes would want a very centralized universal Church with Rome at the top though, right? Pope Francis at least claims to want more local autonomy and collegiality.

Ecclesiology wise, yes. They'd probably want a Crusader state kind of Papacy.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,030
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #31 on: March 02, 2014, 08:50:28 AM »
we talk a lot about how catholics are notorious for change....
what are some of those changes?

Just look at their baptismal theology, for one good example. They used to be pretty strictly Augustinian (accepting that heretics can baptize, but that those baptized by heretics are outside of the Church), but with the Second Vatican Council, they accepted a new ecclesiology of degrees of communion, whereby all who are validly baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are baptized into the Church herself, though in a state of impeded communion if the baptism is performed by heretics or schismatics. It is a really subtle change, I admit, but it has enormous consequences for how they conceptualize the unity of the Church.
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Justin Kolodziej

  • The one they call Justin
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,506
  • the Sorrowful
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Atlanta
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #32 on: March 04, 2014, 01:03:00 PM »
maria
if they accept the pope that initiated the vatican 2 council how is it that they don't accept the council itself, am i missing  something

major   thread derail btw

The Sedes reject the Papacy in favor of 'orthodoxy.' At least, in their mind.

They'd rather hold to a more orthodox Catholicism without the Pope than one they consider 'modernist' with the Pope.

Kind of how the Orthodox do.

Yes, Sedes are more Orthodox than the Pope, but they are too Catholic to be Orthodox.
Actually, it's not that the reject the Papacy per se. They actually hold to Vatican I's Papal supremacy and infallibility doctrines, but get around it by claiming any Pope who teaches heresy automatically stops being the Pope and therefore is not actually teaching heresy as the Pope. It's a diabolically genius solution actually because it also makes the Pope Honorius issue irrelevant ;D
Forgive me the prodigal.
One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism: please act like it, brothers and sisters!

Offline Christopher McAvoy

  • Never forget the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate & all persecuted christians!
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 466
    • St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary
Re: catholic changes
« Reply #33 on: March 12, 2014, 01:49:02 AM »
One needs several books to understand what changes were made.
The story of the west is the story of change....

Many changes are often described as positive improvements rather than abominable departures from the sacred tradition of the orthodox catholic church.

The changes made between 1880 to 2010 are far more than were made before and are generally worse than most changes that had occurred up to that time.

The changes that are most important are probably ones for how the faith is taught and how bishops and popes power is distributed.
Liturgy itself, other than having the domination of the roman rite become more widespread, did not change very much in the west until AFTER the reformation, the changes before than were tiny increments. It was fairly organic before 1550. Sacred art had a number of changes between 1200 and 1500 though, naturalism and humanism took over during that time.

This link provides some useful information:
http://orthodoxbridge.com/contra-sola-scriptura-part-3-of-4/

Quote
"Scripture Versus Tradition

Oberman notes that there were two competing paradigms in the medieval Church (circa 1400 AD): Tradition I and Tradition II (1963:371 ff.).  Tradition I saw Scripture and Tradition as organically related, the single source theory.  Tradition II saw Scripture and Tradition as two distinct phenomena, the two-source theory.  The two paradigms were unconsciously held to by the medieval Church without any attempt to integrate the two.  Lane makes a similar distinction noting that the early Church held to the “coincident view” while the medieval Catholic Church held to the “supplementary view.”

Medieval Catholicism’s adoption of Oberman’s Tradition II paradigm would have lasting consequences for the way theology was done in the West.  Pelikan notes the medieval understanding of Scripture and Tradition undermined the earlier patristic view which assumed the coherence of Scripture and Tradition:

    Proponents of the theory that tradition was an independent source of revelation minimized the fundamentally exegetical content of tradition which had served to define tradition and in the specification of apostolic tradition (1971:119).

By subordinating Scripture and Tradition to the magisterium of the Papacy, Roman Catholicism drifted even further from the early patristic framework.

The tension between Tradition I and Tradition II grew in the fourteenth century as the canon lawyers took advantage of the two-sources theory to gain influence in the papal curia and the royal courts.  Under the guise of the two-sources theory, canon law was invested with an authority comparable to the Bible.  As the canon lawyers surpassed the theologians in status and influence in the papal curia and the royal courts, the theologians reacted by placing greater stress on the single source theory (Oberman 1963:371 ff.).  The rise of canon law and the subsequent rivalry between the canon lawyers and the doctors of theology was unique to Western Christianity and virtually unknown in the Byzantine East.

In the fourteenth century new currents of thoughts began to circulate straining the medieval synthesis of Scripture, Tradition, and Church.  One current of thought (the Scripturalists) posited the possibility that only a faithful remnant, not the Church, would be faithful to Scripture.  Another current of thought (the Curialists) introduced the notion of post-apostolic tradition and exalted the office of the Pope as a arbiter of post-apostolic tradition.  It is here in the tensions between the Curialists and the Scripturalists, and between the canon lawyers and the theologians, we see the incipient fault lines that would rupture in the sixteenth century giving rise to the Reformation and the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.

The growing tensions between the Curialists and the Scripturalists would give rise to Protestantism which inverted the two-sources paradigm by opposing Scripture against Tradition and by placing Scripture over Tradition.  This upending of the medieval Scripture-Tradition paradigm resulted in what Lane calls the “ancillary view” (1975:42).  He notes that the Protestant Reformation was not so much a revolt against Tradition as it was a revolt against the authority of the Catholic Church.

    The revolt was against church teaching rather than against tradition.  The Roman church was seen as a heretical body because it had perverted the Scriptures as well as added to them.  The root issue was one of ecclesiology: does the church define the gospel or vice-versa?  It is significant that the Reformers repeatedly sought to use tradition on their own side.  The prime enemy was not tradition, not even supplementary tradition, but the teaching of the contemporary (Roman) church (1975:42).

We find a similar observation made by Muller:

    What the Reformation did in a new and forceful manner was to pose scripture against tradition and practices of the church and at the same time, define scripture as clear and certain in and of itself and therefore “self-interpreting” (Muller 1996:36).

Lane’s observation about the ancillary view gives us insight as to what was distinctive about the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.  One, it did not entail the wholesale rejection of tradition which is the view held by the Radical Anabaptists and modern American Evangelicals.  Two, it assumed a divergence of Scripture from Tradition which is contrary to the coincidence view that underlies patristic theology. Three, it opposed the authority of Scripture against the Church.  It is the last point that differentiates the Protestant variant of sola scriptura from its Humanist predecessors.  Underlying the ancillary view is the belief that the Church can err and has erred, and for that reason recourse to Scripture is necessary for reforming the Church."

Best wishes finding the answers to your question...thats all I can contribute now.




« Last Edit: March 12, 2014, 01:51:52 AM by Christopher McAvoy »
"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot